|
Can anyone see anything outright terrible or stupid with this crossing and road design? The blue lines are tram tracks. Also if one were to only have parallel parking on one side of a hill and both sides are equal, is is better to have parking on the up or down side? I'd imagine the up side as it's easier to back downhill rather than have to apply gas to back uphill? Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Oct 21, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Angle parking would be much safer... except there's not enough room for it on both sides. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
How is angle parking safer? It's certainly easier to pull into but I've always found it way harder to back out of, since you're reversing into traffic, stopping, and changing gears. Seem to need a bigger gap in traffic to safely do it. I've had close calls as both a driver pulling out and a driver on the road around angle parking off a street. It seems pretty rare anyways for street parking. Now, angle parking you back into, that seems like a good idea but I've never seen it. Like anyone who has a driveway on a busy street will always back into their driveway so they are facing traffic and have full visibility when pulling out. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How is angle parking safer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How is angle parking safer? It's certainly easier to pull into but I've always found it way harder to back out of, since you're reversing into traffic, stopping, and changing gears. Seem to need a bigger gap in traffic to safely do it. I've had close calls as both a driver pulling out and a driver on the road around angle parking off a street. It seems pretty rare anyways for street parking. City I grew up in has back-in spots downtown, I hear good things about how well they work. https://goo.gl/maps/LFw2A
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Angle parking means you only need a one-point turn to get in and a two-point turn to get out. The worse part (which probably applies to parallel parking too, but for some reason angle parking makes it worse) is that, where I live, people have a tendency to stop behind someone pulling out because they want your parking spot. And they end up backing the traffic up. So on a busy day you regularly see cars backed up right to the traffic lights etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
The Deadly Hume posted:The worse part (which probably applies to parallel parking too, but for some reason angle parking makes it worse) is that, where I live, people have a tendency to stop behind someone pulling out because they want your parking spot. And they end up backing the traffic up. So on a busy day you regularly see cars backed up right to the traffic lights etc. On the flip side, those cars are using the parking spaces efficiently so they're doing a lot less circling the block. Unless it's halting a dozen cars for more than 30 seconds I'd call it a wash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How is angle parking safer? It's certainly easier to pull into but I've always found it way harder to back out of, since you're reversing into traffic, stopping, and changing gears. Seem to need a bigger gap in traffic to safely do it. I've had close calls as both a driver pulling out and a driver on the road around angle parking off a street. It seems pretty rare anyways for street parking. I only really brought it up because of the 12% grade...
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Here's a 15% grade street with parallel parking. http://goo.gl/maps/4kZcc Doesn't seem too horrible, but I wouldn't want to ride my bike up it every day. I'm trying to picture grades in my head and I remember this street as it was right across from my hotel when I stayed in Seattle, it's one of the steepest downtown apparently. I thought I'd have to hunt around or do math to get the grade but the first result on google answered it. I'm sure it's got nothing on San Francisco though. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/steepest.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Doesn't seem too horrible, but I wouldn't want to ride my bike up it every day. Agreed. I think that the road is fine unless it's supposed to be a central bicycle thoroughfare. That would be a bitch to ride every day. I ride a 6% grade and that's enough to deter most people. edit: Apparently it's actually a 6%-12% grade. Check out this cool bike app: http://veloroutes.org/hillgradecalculator/ Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Agreed. I think that the road is fine unless it's supposed to be a central bicycle thoroughfare. That would be a bitch to ride every day. I ride a 6% grade and that's enough to deter most people. Solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j1PgmMbug8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec_ujdz-mn0 I find it interesting how it has multiple lifts, it's more complex than just 1 user at a time. \/ I always forget manual cars exist. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Right? I want one of those so bad on my hill. Also, in a manual car it'd be a huge pain in the rear end to do parallel parking with a 12% grade. I'd avoid it with my car and just park somewhere else, but there would be people who didn't and that would definitely cause a spike in the fender-bender rate. Baronjutter posted:\/ I always forget manual cars exist. Totes. And it's not that it'd be impossible to do, because you can certainly do it with a combination of your parking brake and good clutch-work, but it's not something that's fun to do and there's an ever-present chance that someone will lose control and roll down the hill five or ten feet. With angled packing there's a lot less shifting involved (which also means less time spent in neutral with your feet on the brakes or revving with your parking brake engaged) and if you end up rolling you won't be headed right toward another car. As for up-hill/down-hill, I'd prefer down-hill since you can rest your tire on the curb to prevent sliding - a real concern during winter months - though it's easier to get in and out of up-hill angled parking in a manual car since you can use gravity and your clutch to reverse while in first gear. Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Quite funny (if you weren't there)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Haha, drat, that's fantastic. Public employees aren't allowed to show any significant humor here on official social media. Maybe the West Coast really is different. https://twitter.com/CTDOT_Statewide https://twitter.com/RIDOTnews (RIDOT has always been a lot better at social media than CTDOT)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
This is how social media is done properly. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Going back to the parallel parking on steep slopes topic for a sec, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrDyUKXlT4M Several very steep grades in a row with more than a few people parallel parked on it. One of my cousins lives in this area and there are several more streets that are just like this one with just as many parked cars on them. There's also this in a different part of town which just seems like a bad idea all around: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Woah I've never seen a road like that, is it made out of concrete tiles or something? Or is it just a pattern for better grip?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Haha, drat, that's fantastic. Public employees aren't allowed to show any significant humor here on official social media. Maybe the West Coast really is different. Haha, the guy is on a roll today: WSDOT Twitter posted:Uh oh, semi checking out the woods NB 167 near S. 180th. Not blocking, but will be soon. https://twitter.com/wsdot_traffic/status/524579802271842304
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Have you ever stumbled across an important secret that nobody's supposed to know about, then gotten all coy and giggly? Hee hee...
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
If there is an ethical and professionally-safe way for you to share what that big secret is, it might help
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:If there is an ethical and professionally-safe way for you to share what that big secret is, it might help It's just an October Surprise  We'll all find out eventually. Technically, it's public record, but very few people are going to bother going through OSTA reports.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Have you ever stumbled across an important secret that nobody's supposed to know about, then gotten all coy and giggly? Major Traffic Generator 051-1408-01 Uconn Health Center - Partial Opening 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
nimper posted:Major Traffic Generator 051-1408-01 Uconn Health Center - Partial Opening If that's the full title, it's missing the best part!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If that's the full title, it's missing the best part! That's just from the PDF report of recently reviewed cases. No other information!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Haha, drat, that's fantastic. Public employees aren't allowed to show any significant humor here on official social media. Maybe the West Coast really is different. On the other hand, putting the Seattle DOT feed in the hands of a real person has mostly resulted in awkward Reddit memes. They stopped trying so hard to be funny after that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Woah I've never seen a road like that, is it made out of concrete tiles or something? Or is it just a pattern for better grip? Dunno about the the first part (concrete tiles I guess), but later on it turns into concrete slabs. There are a ton of roads in the western parts of Vancouver built like that: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2589913,-123.1896962,3a,51.1y,85.08h,64.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAlHtDtvAowg98TpHCIfzjg!2e0 https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2628846,-123.2080467,3a,79.5y,261.88h,73.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1_asa-m0t3kXf8XR3hq9RQ!2e0 I guess the plus is that they never get potholes, but the minus is that they develop giant ruts between the slabs that swallow bicycle tires. Over time, they're steadily tarring over them: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2628846,-123.2080467,3a,79.5y,261.88h,73.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1_asa-m0t3kXf8XR3hq9RQ!2e0 Which doesn't always work so well: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2381663,-123.1463512,3a,75y,110.31h,56.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1soMIdijgWDGqR7ckJsH3-mw!2e0
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Dunno about the the first part (concrete tiles I guess), but later on it turns into concrete slabs. There are a ton of roads in the western parts of Vancouver built like that: Composite pavement is ok, so long as you do it right! A thick coat of asphalt is essential, as is a good sub-base. Here's what happened in my home state when they didn't pay attention to the sub-base: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Typical concrete slab construction is the opposite of that. The new stuff we're putting in for I-275 in Tampa uses a limestone subgrade, an asphalt base course and a 12 inch thick concrete slab surface course (thick enough so that it can be milled a dozen before completely wearing out). In the most recent projects, the concrete slabs have been reinforced with rebar and remesh like a bridge deck to help keep the slabs from shifting. You never pave over concrete, else you get what Cichlidae described, regardless of how well you originally built the road. US41 in Tampa Heights is a horrible mess of thump thump from being paved over. https://www.google.com/maps/@27.99865,-82.4511913,3a,47.5y,358.48h,66.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sf8ofpNPyE7WgM6J_Ndiy4g!2e0 Varance fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Varance posted:Typical concrete slab construction is the opposite of that. The new stuff we're putting in for I-275 in Tampa uses a limestone subgrade, an asphalt base course and a 12 inch thick concrete slab surface course. In the most recent projects, the concrete slabs have been reinforced with rebar like a bridge deck to help keep the slabs from shifting so that FDOT doesn't have to touch that stuff again for 50+ years. That's fine if you don't have to deal with freeze-thaw. Of course, there's also jointless continuously reinforced concrete pavement, which is voodoo as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's fine if you don't have to deal with freeze-thaw. Of course, there's also jointless continuously reinforced concrete pavement, which is voodoo as far as I'm concerned. Voodoo is exactly what they're doing down here. I really wish I could take pictures, as they currently have a bunch of exposed concrete slab ends at the various temporary exits. The cross section looks more like a load bearing wall from a skyscraper than pavement. Varance fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
I think the main problem with jokey traffic reports is that sometimes people die in those accidents. Make one bad call and you get a "just the facts" memo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I think the main problem with jokey traffic reports is that sometimes people die in those accidents. Make one bad call and you get a "just the facts" memo. Agreed, you gotta err on the side of good taste. My local paper does this kind of jokey coverage with the police report, and often it veers into extremely poor taste. Mocking victims - or even criminal suspects - for a laugh is generally a bad idea. "Haha your life is forever ruined". 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's fine if you don't have to deal with freeze-thaw. Of course, there's also jointless continuously reinforced concrete pavement, which is voodoo as far as I'm concerned. I think thats what they were trying to do here. all i know is concrete roads suck because of the fact that they may need maitenence less often, but when they do its a giant clusterfuck. They use concrete here in SD with its vicious freeze-thaw cycles. (including one week last january where it went from 40 to -20 in a week) and most of the roads arent bad, but they've been doing...something to one of the main roads in town and it took them all summer to finish like less than a mile of road, but i saw lots of rebar, lots of them digging and cutting nice square holes in the concrete and stuff. I dunno what it was, but it was an "improvement" project that did nothing but snare traffic for the entire summer with absolutely no noticeable benefit - the road is just as bumpy as before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
So the Oregon DOT came up with a brilliant new idea to target those terrible fuel-efficient drivers: Replacing our already minimal gas taxes with mileage taxes. Don't put any effort into coming up with a solution that is ecologically-friendly in any way ODOT  . Hopefully this idea crashes and burns.quote:The Oregon Department of Transportation plans to launch a voluntary program statewide to test the pay-per-mile road tax. The first phase, which will include 5,000 Oregon drivers, is slated to start July 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
To play devil's advocate for a minute, taxing by milage makes more sense - you don't magically cause less wear on roads just because your car is more fuel-efficient. Fuel-efficient drivers would still save on the base price of gas, they just wouldn't have that minor tax relief. Everyone wins!  But realistically speaking, it's presumably easier for them to do this than to deal with the outcry over HIGHER GAS TAXES , so I'd guess that's the real reason why it was even considered. (And I wouldn't be surprised if it acted as a stealth tax hike for most people) It'd also have several kinks to work out - the biggest one I can think of is how they'd get their share from out-of-state drivers(especially with Portland being so close to the state border).
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:To play devil's advocate for a minute, taxing by milage makes more sense - you don't magically cause less wear on roads just because your car is more fuel-efficient. Fuel-efficient drivers would still save on the base price of gas, they just wouldn't have that minor tax relief. Everyone wins! But I also don't cause the same wear on the roads in say a Prius per mile than a Hummer does so you're back to square one. And I also don't cause the same wear with just me and nothing else in the car versus loading up the family and all the luggage for a trip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:To play devil's advocate for a minute, taxing by milage makes more sense - you don't magically cause less wear on roads just because your car is more fuel-efficient. Fuel-efficient drivers would still save on the base price of gas, they just wouldn't have that minor tax relief. Everyone wins! I'm with it to an extent, in the sense that we need to increase taxes in order to support basic infrastructural spending. And I even see the need for including fuel-efficient and electric cars into the mix. But I'm extremely hesitant to encourage anyone to keep using their big gas guzzling vehicles. If anything we should be increasing taxes on gas, not reducing taxation. This concept slightly broadens the tax base, but encourages a lot of problems and subsidizes the wrong industries and wrong behavior. Nintendo Kid posted:But I also don't cause the same wear on the roads in say a Prius per mile than a Hummer does so you're back to square one. Agreed. Indeed realistically virtually all of the human-caused damage to roads is being caused by commercial trucking. If we want to target our taxes on people who are damaging the roads then we should target semi-trucks 99% of the time. The remaining basic road spending requirements are driven by environmental damage, weather damage, accidents, and community reinvestment. quote:It seems obvious that the heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does to roads over time. A 40,000 pound big rig probably does a bit more damage than your average 3500 pound consumer vehicle, right? It turns out that vehicle road damage doesn’t rise linearly with weight. Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car [1]!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Both your Hummer and Prius are insignificant compared to the wear caused by trucks so it still makes more sense than fuel taxes (for the specific purpose of road maintenance - you can still tax gas for other purposes). E: What Kaal quoted. orcane fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
The whole idea of a VMT tax is fantastic for truckers and politicians, but pretty terrible from an environmental perspective. America has strong ties with lobbyists over common sense, so I expect it'll catch on pretty quickly. I would like to note that the Federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and some state taxes are even lower. I looked at a graph of gas taxes in industrialized countries, and the US is far far FAR below the average. If 'tax' weren't a dirty word in this country, we'd have no problem raising enough revenue to cover highway, ped and bike, and transit improvements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I looked at a graph of gas taxes in industrialized countries, and the US is far far FAR below the average. A lot of those countries have tax rates of over 100% on fuel. At that point, it's more of a penalty fee than a tax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 16:06
|
|